BreakPoint: The True Beauty of Women

“I Will Do It for You, Baby”

You won’t believe what one lingerie company is doing to show what makes a woman truly beautiful. I’ve got a great story for you. Get a hankie.

When it comes to lingerie companies, we’ve gotten used to some pretty graphic ads. You know the kind I mean: ones that feature impossibly perfect, airbrushed models wearing frilly and revealing underwear.

But the other day I came across the most amazing lingerie ad I’ve ever seen. No, I was not reading a Victoria’s Secret catalog. I was watching an online ad created by the Thailand branch of Wacoal, a Japan-based lingerie company. It was part of a three-part series called “Beauty Inside.” And it magnificently depicts the true value of women.

The first ad opens with a married couple sitting nervously in their doctor’s office, holding hands. “After trying so hard for many years, she finally got pregnant,” the husband says. But today they’re getting some bad news.

“I know it’s hard,” the doctor says sympathetically. “But please make a decision as soon as possible.”

The couple, clearly stunned, drive home, hold one another, and cry.

“On that day at the hospital,” the husband relates, “the doctor told us that she’s got cancer. She has only two choices. First, she might be cured if she took chemotherapy. But that may cause our child a disability. Or we might lose our baby. The alternative is to keep our child. But she might have to fight the cancer alone, without any remedy.”

The woman cries as her husband holds her. The next morning, she gets up and walks to the living room, where the baby’s crib is still sitting on its box. She runs her fingers along the crib and makes a decision: “I will do it for you, baby.”

The mother begins putting the crib together and plays with a stuffed animal, anticipating her child’s birth. Now she is back in the hospital, in labor. When her doctor holds up her healthy baby, she cries with joy. After cuddling and kissing her child, the mother hands him to her husband. She smiles at her little family as a nurse takes her down the hall and into the chemotherapy room.

These ads—which are both profoundly pro-women and pro-life—have become a global phenomenon. Millions of people have watched them online. Clearly they’ve hit a nerve—and I think I know why.

First, most lingerie ads focus on women’s bodies, suggesting that a woman’s appearance is the most important thing about her. But these ads challenge young women to value themselves in other ways: To celebrate strength and sacrifice, courage and compassion.

They’re teaching women something else, as well: that a worthwhile man will value them, not based on outer beauty, which is fleeting, but on inner beauty, which is based on character. And when life throws them a curve ball—such as cancer during a pregnancy—a strong man will help his wife through it.

Finally, I believe modern young women may be getting tired of being encouraged to take the easy way out when they run into a problem—such as a problem pregnancy. Women are, I think, moved by the idea that self-sacrifice is noble, and can be the source of great joy.

It’s hard to watch this ad without crying, especially when you find out it was based on a true story. Whether it meant to or not, the Wacoal company gives us a perfect illustration of 1 Corinthians 13:7: “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

I hope you’ll watch these ads, and share them with your friends, sisters, and daughters. Their positive messages will help cancel out the hundreds of negative ones that bombard young women every day.

And you just might consider buying the woman in your life some lingerie, not from Victoria’s Secret, but from the company that teaches that the value of women is in the nobility of their character.

 

Further Reading and Information

The Beauty of Women: I Will Do It for You, Baby

As Eric highlights, the true value of a woman is not found in appearance but in integrity of character. To see this demonstrated in the arts, watch the Wacoal “My Beautiful Woman” ad series. We’ve included the links below.

Find a BreakPoint radio station in your area–Click here.


  • Gladys1071

    So this article basically states that every woman should make the same decision as the one portrayed in this article, and if a woman chooses differently she has no character? So if alternative choices are made they are not to be respected, even though it may be an equally difficult decision. This article wants to make women like they are selfish if they don’t choose to sacrifice themselves.

    • Oregon Conservative

      Wow, that’s all you got from this whole article and the videos? Defensive much?

      • urbanvrwcmom

        Yet, those of us who made sacrifices for our children are said to be selfish, go figure!

    • Jeff Downs

      Some choices are wrong.

      • Gladys1071

        Not for you to decide for other people what they should do in regards to medical and health issues that don’t affect you.

        • Jeff Downs

          Well, sure I do just like you do, and just like the courts do. This is partly how laws are made.

        • Tyler

          This logic isn’t applied to any other situations involving harm to other persons. Domestic violence laws, neglect laws, war crime definitions, etc. are based on the same logic as the pro-life position. When one person intends or executes harm against another, it is well within the rights of others to advocate for the victim. This even applies in cases of animal abuse.

          • Gladys1071

            Yes, well abortion is legal, and it is not a crime, and it is a medical and health issue that is private and should be between the woman/her doctor and her family to decide, NOT for any other busybodies poking their nose into other people’s business that is not theirs.

          • Jeff Downs

            We believe it should be a crime, since it takes the life of an innocent human being. Remember, humans only produce humans (just like cats produce cats, etc.). It seems as though your poking your nose into this as well. Hmmm. Double standard? The court that declared it legal, was it poking its nose into business that wasn’t their business?

          • Gladys1071

            well i don’t, by outlawing it, you relegate women to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, so it would violate her rights to her bodily autonomy. The court declared that a woman’s rights come first, and to leave the decision up to the woman to decide whether or not she wants to carry a pregnancy to term, as it should be since the gestation of a pregnancy occurs in HER body, so she has the FINAL say on whether she allows or refused to gestate a pregnancy. So going back to your post, yes the decision should be the woman’s.

          • Jeff Downs

            “so it would violate her rights to her bodily autonomy.” But, it is not her body. There is another body inside her body. Remember, it is a human being growing inside the women; it is not fish or a frog. Abortion takes the life (kills) an innocent human being. “Forced to carry” really? No, that is where a baby belongs; It is supposed to be safe place. Should we be forced to care for two year old children that are “unwanted”? The fact is Gladys, it is crazy to think that our society believes it is okay to kill and innocent human being. We know it is a baby growing inside the mother, that point is a given now. People still believe (and it seems you are one of them) that killing is okay, if the baby is unwanted.

          • Gladys1071

            an embryo at -5 weeks is not the equivalent of a baby, it cannot live outside the womb, it has no organs, no brain, and it is not even aware of itself. No i don’t consider it a crime to terminate a pregnancy at that stage. the embryo is IN HER BODY, so yes she has the FINAL Say on whether or not she is willing to gestate a pregnancy for 9 months. Most abortions occcur at 5-6 weeks, it is not crazy to consider the woman’s rights FIRST , since it is her body that must do the gestating and have to go thru childbirth , the embryo has NO RIGHTS because it is INSIDE Another person.

          • Jeff Downs

            I seriously doubt most abortions occur in the 5 – 6 week period. But even so, the fetus (little baby) has its on DNA, arms, heart, lungs, etc. etc. It is not part of the mother. It is maybe inside the mother (that’s where babies belong), but it is not the mother. Since it is its only person, sucking, the baby out of the womb, and taking its life, is unjustified murder.

          • Gladys1071

            you are incorrect, do you know anything about fetal development? AT 5-6 weeks it has no lungs, lungs develop last at 25-30 weeks. You need to do research and you will find that what i say is true, most abortions occur at -5-6 weeks ( the embryo is the size of an appleseed), it is NOT a baby, it is a human embryo in develoopment, it does not have any rights, it CANNOT live outside the womb, it has no brain. Having its own DNA does not mean it has rights or that its rights supersede the mothers rights.

          • Jeff Downs

            I’ll give you the last word. I’m done.

          • Daniel Scrugham

            Why are you on this website with your radical views on the murder of babies?

          • Gladys1071

            my views are not radical, they are mainstream pro-choice views. What do I need your permission to read articles on this site?

          • Daniel Scrugham

            I guess your views aren’t radical since our culture has become more accepting of the murder of babies. I was just surprised you are on Breakpoint, which defends the unborn child.

          • Gladys1071

            I like to read articles and blogs of opposing points of view. By the way I am not alone in being pro-choice, being pro-choice just means that i believe that women should be left to make the best decision that is best for them in their circumstances and should not be dictated by others. I don’t equate abortion with murder. It may seem radical to you but, their are millions of people that are pro-choice and even some Christians are pro-choice.

            I don’t mean to dehumanize the unborn, i just find that a woman’s rights come first.

          • Tyler

            The legality argument is a moot point: no serious thinker on this issue argues that abortion is illegal. The argument is that it should be illegal, and that it is immoral. But, I think your last sentence is the very sticking point between pro-choice and pro-life people’s views. And to be honest, I think that statement is too universally applied. I consider myself fairly libertarian, but like all things, there are limits. The life of another human being trumps (I can’t believe I used that word that way) the preferences of the mother. Same reasoning for why you can’t smoke a cigar in a public restaurant anymore or you couldn’t ever drive your car down a sidewalk. A lot like the previous comment I made, we would never apply the “my rights over your life” principal in other situations (hopefully). I don’t particularly like my dog right now, but it would not be moral for me to take him to the vet and have him put to sleep because of my right to not own a dog. Ironically, the rebuttal of even pro-choice people would likely be “well why not take him to a rescue shelter?” I think the pro-life rebuttal would be the same then, just applied consistently in all situations, and especially to human children. And I really think (without looking it up) that your facts about fetal development are misleading. Yes the fetus does have lungs well before 20 weeks. Maybe not fully developed, but since when is that justification for stopping the heart, which beats at 8 weeks? Again, apply it universally: would anyone (or even any animal) without functioning lungs be a candidate for termination if they weren’t wanted? Why is it that simply being preborn gives us a separate set of rules to consider about termination of that life? Gladys, I can appreciate your thoughtfulness on this issue, you’ve clearly done some serious thinking about it, I just want to be clear that what I hear is reasoning to a pre-determined conclusion.

          • Gladys1071

            The BIG difference is that the embryo/fetus lives INSIDE, the mother. A woman that is pregnant and wishes to not be, is akin to gestational servitude to force her to stay pregnant. The Supreme court in my opinion ruled in a reasonable matter that the fetus has no rights until 24 weeks. At that point it can live outside the body and it can removed from the mother and will most likely live.

            Yes their are limits to bodily autonomy, but bodily autonomy does TRUMP the right to life if that life requires gestation inside another person’s body. The issue here is that the mother is required to act a host and grow a living being inside her body which can cause medical complications. (pregnancy carries the risk of the following): Stroke, kidney failure, hypertension, severe nausea, possible bed rest, Childbirth complications like surgery, and even death.

            That is why one is not forced to give blood or our organs to anybody even if they die, the right to OUR OWN BODIES is pretty universal and trumps anybody’s life.

            The reason I am pro-choice is that I don’t believe in forcing someone to stay pregnant against her will, I believe her RIGHTS come FIRST. I also don’t believe an embryo that CANNOT live outside the womb has more rights than the pregnant person. It is reasonable to give the woman priority over the fetus that is why abortion is legal.

          • Tyler

            I hate to bring in the Maslow’s Heirarchy of needs, it’s very cliché, but it brings a very clear visual to the argument. You cannot have body autonomy without survival. In order to guarantee body autonomy you have to be alive, so your argument denies body autonomy to the fetus. Again, we’ll disagree whether the fetus is a person or not, but you did enter into a discussion with me about whose rights were more important, the mother’s body rights or the fetus’s right to life, stating that the mother’s comes first. So your argument falls in on itself, you are preserving body autonomy for the mother while denying body autonomy for the fetus, or you have to claim that the fetus is not a person, you can’t do both.
            In terms of punishment and “forcing a women to be pregnant,” I understand that in cases of rape, sure, I wouldn’t chastise anyone for the choices they make there, but the overwhelming majority of pregnancies are not the result of rape. People have to live with the consequences of their actions all of the time, even as it pertains to what they do with their bodies, and I don’t see why (again) we need a new set of rules just for this situation. There is a living human being inside, who depends on his or her mother, and that is suppose to happen. When a human life is at stake, all lives must be accounted for, not discarded because of preference. That is why the article, and the pro-life argument in general, correctly labels abortion as selfish.

          • Gladys1071

            The argument about bodily autonomy is that even if the fetus is a person it’s right to life does not extend to forcing someone to provide that via gestation inside someone’s body. So in the case of abortion you have two conflicting rights, one will supersede the other.

            The fetus/embryo body is INSIDE another person so though yes it has its own body, it requires ANOTHER BODY to live and that is where the conflict of rights comes in. I believe a woman’s rights override the fetus even if it dies (i know it sounds callous) but as a woman my rights to my body are very important to me and if a woman does not have her bodily autonomy than we become nothing but chattel and incubators with no rights.

          • Gladys1071

            Even if abortion is selfish, women have a right to their bodies and and a right to be free the impositions and burdens of being pregnant, that is my contention. The person who is pregnant is the person that gets the final say on who gets to occupy her uterus and the contents of her body. Just like you get to determine if someone gets to draw your blood for donation.

          • Gladys1071

            Actually you can have your dog put down, since you own your pet, it may sound bad, but I am just stating a fact, putting an animal down is not murder and it is legal and people do it all the time.

            I believe a woman has a right to an abortion because she should not be forced to gestate a pregnancy against her will, she OWNS her body, like you own YOUR BODY, and nobody can take your kidney, or draw your blood. Body ownership is universal that is why even prisoners cannot be experimented on or take their organs, they own their bodies too,

          • Gladys1071

            l am correct a fetus does NOT have lungs until 2nd trimester on, at 5-6 weeks it has no organs, no brain, just the heart and also in a very rudimentary stage.

          • Ann Morgan

            Gladys, you are not right. It DOES have the above organs, but they are not functional. For instance, the brain does not produce the sort of organized electrical activity necessary for thought, sensation, etc. Likewise, the lungs are there, in a rudimentary sense, but they are incapable of performing gas exchange with the atmosphere.

          • David

            Gladys, I am so sad that this conversation has diverged so far from celebrating the heroic self sacrifice of the woman (and her husband as well, though this is almost a side plot in this story) for the sake of her child. The mother of one of my best friends growing up faced a similar circumstance, and he was grateful even as a teenager. I also admired her strong decision. She raised a fine son, and my life is better for them both. Thank you, Mrs. Q.

          • Gladys1071

            The embryo does not own the uterus, the woman does, since she is the uterus owner she gets to give consent or not to being pregnant.

          • Jeff Downs

            You seem to have strange view of autonomy – “I can do whatever I want with my own body.” Which, of course is simply not the case in our land. But, to stress again, the baby in the womb is not her body.

          • Gladys1071

            The embryo is IN HER BODY, HER rights supersede. It is not strange to to say one does NOT want to go thru pregnancy. Bodily autononomy is bodily autonomy, woman has the right t terminate an unwanted pregnancy if she wishes to be FREE FROM BEING PREGNANT.

  • Tyler

    I think this is great, and it’s very difficult for men to enter into this conversation because of the immediate and harsh pushback from those who think it’s for women to decide (unless you’re a man who agrees that only women should decide), so amen, I think it’s helpful in the long run to have compassionate but determined male voices in the conversation. However, I will say that it was difficult to read and hear “impossibly perfect” in reference to the models and that “outer beauty is fleeting.” I think these statement inadvertently buy in to the same lies that the VS ads promote: only certain types of women are beautiful, outwardly. Certainly as women get older (men too), bodies change, but that doesn’t mean less beauty; unless you believe the narrow view of outward beauty previously mentioned. Otherwise, great article, and to the point of one commenter before me, yes, it is more selfless to put the needs of your child before yourself. I don’t think the writer would ever go out of his way to insult or accuse a woman who does choose an abortion, attacking single persons won’t change the conversation at all, it only demonizes the pro-life argument, however talking in principal, I think this is a perfectly valid point.

  • Wiz Kidd

    Shocking, coming from Japan/Thailand!

  • MaryB435

    Beautiful! We recently met Dr. Gianna Molla, daughter of St. Gianna Beretta Molla, who gave her live so that her daughter would live. Trusting that God will bring good out of even the most tragic situations: Life will be victorious!